Dear all,
now that the ICHEP deadline is almost upon us we have to move forward with our abstracts. From the LLR group there is a strong push to have an abstract focusing on SiW - apparently they have a draft, but I have not seen it yet.
Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that we will get more than two talks, so in the end this might not be very beneficial. But if done right it could be incorporated in the global plan in a coherent way. That abstract would then also point out the benefits of the CALICE activities to CMS and ATLAS upgrades - at the moment our “exports” that receive most attention. In this scenario, we would have two technology abstracts and one on performance / analysis. I hope that I get the draft in the next hours, so that we can see how to make this all work, but it would be good if you would form your opinion already now.
In this scenario, we would have the following
- Technical abstact covering advances towards solving “real-world” system aspects for highly granular calorimeters and mass production techniques for AHCAL and SDHCAL, potentially also ScintECAL, latest test beam results and an outlook towards planned combined test beams which will expand our “technology mix"
- SiW Abstract focusing on technical prototype, synergies with CMS and ATLAS developments (while not stepping on their territory - this is something for Vincent and Jean-Claude to ensure, since they are pushing this)
- Analysis Abstract covering latest SiW G4 results, SDHCAL results & simulations, AHCAL & Combined detector hadron shower results, …
We will write the abstracts based on the input we have?
Cheers,
Frank
> On 28 Jan 2016, at 19:19 , laktineh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I agree with both Felix and Frank for what concerns the comparison.
> The wording of Frank for the different technologies is appropriate and I agree with. We need to add one sentence or two on the future projects and more precisely the combined tests ( like the one expected in June for the technological SDHCAL and SiW) and also the common efforts ( SiPM tests for different technologies, DAQ, electronics..etc).
>
> Regards
> Imad
>
> Le 28 janv. 2016 à 11:07, Frank Simon <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>
>> Dear Felix, Marina, all,
>>
>> I don’t think a comparison is what we should do at this point - we should take the ICHEP abstract rather as an opportunity to present our latest hardware activities - with the increasing interest in highly granular calorimeters emerging everywhere it is good to show that we constantly have new things to add to the discussion.
>>
>> For the AHCAL, we have two main items that would fit well:
>> - 2015 beam test: system integration for data concentration, powering, cooling and monitoring
>> - advances in SiPMs and new surface-mount design for automated assembly of next prototype
>>
>> On the SiW ECAL side and on the SDHCAL side very similar things exist, so it seems to me quite appropriate to have the following two main themes:
>> - Advances towards solving “real-world” system aspects for highly granular calorimeters
>> - New technologies and techniques suitable for mass production.
>>
>> For the abstract, there is no absolutely strict length limit, but the webpage says “approximately half a page”. That gives enough space to explicitly mention a few highlights, as shown for the AHCAL example above, in addition to a general introduction.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 10:56, Felix Sefkow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Marina,
>>>
>>> I think that for the technological developments, where things are still very much in flow,
>>> a comparison is difficult and probably also not so meaningful at this stage.
>>>
>>> Still, I agree with Imad that we should not present an inventory, but we had significant
>>> test beam efforts in 2015 for the main technologies and should present these in the context
>>> of developing scalable designs for a large detector.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 10:17 , Marina Chadeeva <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Frank, all,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that we need a short plan to be proposed for both talks.
>>>>
>>>> As for technologies, my opinion is that the best would be a comparison, but I have no clear idea how to present it.
>>>>
>>>> As for Geant4 studies, we have:
>>>> 1) Updates of SiW ECAL (including Geant4 10) - Naomi's note
>>>> 2) SDHCAL recent results (ArborPFA and Digitizer);
>>>> 3) Radial shower profiles in Sc-Fe AHCAL (longitudinal were shown)
>>>> 4) Combined Sc calorimeter studies - the Oskar's CAN under review
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Marina
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Frank Simon writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Imad, all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully agree that we should not just have a simple inventory, and since the presentations at ICHEP typically are ~ 15 minutes we clearly have to focus on a few key highlights. I would see the major developments for technical prototypes as an important component of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrespective of how we get the input - in principle we have representatives for all technologies in the SpB, so we can also do it here - we should communicate the plan to the collaboration to make sure people don’t get nervous and start submitting things on their own, which then might lead to some confusion and problems with the track conveners. For this we do not need fully formulated abstracts, the outline of the general ideas would do. The final writing of the abstracts can then happen next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 Jan 2016, at 15:30 , laktineh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Frank and Marina,
>>>>>> I agree with Frank proposal. For technological issues we have to
>>>>> discuss what to include before to ask the collaboration for input. For me it is useless to have a simple inventory
>>>>>> of the activities. We should focus on the recent challenges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who will write the proposals? I can help for both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Imad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 27 janv. 2016 à 15:02, Frank Simon <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Marina, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the issue of ICHEP abstracts is now getting quite urgent. If there are
>>>>> no opinions / suggestions by others on the committee, I suggest to go along with the idea of two abstracts, one on technological issues and one on performance and GEANT4 studies. This plan should then be communicated ASAP to the collaboration to solicit input on what to include, so that we can have the abstracts ready towards the end of next week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2016, at 10:27 , Frank Simon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Marina, all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thank you for bringing this up again!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two years ago, we had two talks, both on analysis topics: One on
>>>>> performance, one on Geant4 comparisons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To not always do things the same way, but also to highlight the
>>>>> technical developments which are currently happening, I would suggest to again submit two abstracts, but this time one focusing on new technical developments and the latest test beams, and one on analysis results. The analysis abstract then should only cover recent performance results and GEANT4 studies, rather than a complete overview over all that we have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since those two abstracts then are also quite different this may
>>>>> increase the chance of again getting two talks - which is by no means guaranteed at a conference like ICHEP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:18 , marina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the deadline for abstract submission to ICHEP 2016 (February 7) is approaching.
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any proposals about the contributions from CALICE?
>>>>>>>>> I would like to know your opinion before asking the people around collaboration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Marina
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Марина Валентиновна Чадеева,
>>>>>>>>> к.т.н., ст. науч. сотрудник
>>>>>>>>> ГНЦ РФ ИТЭФ
>>>>>>>>> корп. 180 комн. 403
>>>>>>>>> Тел.: 5685
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Marina Chadeeva
>>>>>>>>> Research Associate
>>>>>>>>> ITEP, bld. 180, room 403
>>>>>>>>> Tel: +7 499 789 6685 (local 5685)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <=========================================================>
>>>>>>>> Frank Simon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phone: +49-89-32354-535
>>>>>>>> Mobile: +49-160-90446142
>>>>>>>> <=========================================================>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <=========================================================>
>>>>>>> Frank Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phone: +49-89-32354-535
>>>>>>> Mobile: +49-160-90446142
>>>>>>> <=========================================================>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <=========================================================>
>>>>> Frank Simon
>>>>>
>>>>> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone: +49-89-32354-535
>>>>> Mobile: +49-160-90446142
>>>>> <=========================================================>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Марина Валентиновна Чадеева,
>>>> к.т.н., ст. науч. сотрудник
>>>> ГНЦ РФ ИТЭФ
>>>> корп. 180 комн. 403
>>>> Тел.: 5685
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Marina Chadeeva
>>>> Research Associate
>>>> ITEP, bld. 180, room 403
>>>> Tel: +7 499 789 6685 (local 5685)
>>>
>>> Dr. Felix Sefkow
>>>
>>> DESY, Notkestr. 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany
>>>
>>> phone: +49 40 8998 3402
>>> mobile: +49 151 14727861
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> https://aida2020.web.cern.ch
>>> https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CALICE/WebHome
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <=========================================================>
>> Frank Simon
>>
>> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik
>>
>> Phone: +49-89-32354-535
>> Mobile: +49-160-90446142
>> <=========================================================>
<=========================================================>
Frank Simon
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik
Phone: +49-89-32354-535
Mobile: +49-160-90446142
<=========================================================>
|
